In
the early 17th century, the Atlantic coast of North America and India became
British colonies almost at the same time. North America relatively early got
rid of the British colonial rule on the road of independent development. India,
though eventually emerging on the world stage as an independent sovereign
state, has been subject to British colonial rule for three and a half
centuries. This article will discuss the reason of this difference from the
Angle of British colonial policy.

Modern
colonialism has been a phenomenon since the great geographical discovery, which
is mainly manifested as colonial aggression. Colonial aggression is an overseas
extension of the development of western capitalism and an inevitable outcome of
the expansion of the capitalist world. The policy of colonial rule serves the
capitalist development of colonial countries. Colonial countries adopted
different policies at different times and in different colonies. However, no
matter what kind of policies the colonial countries adopted, they were
inseparable, that is, in order to make the colonies into their own sales
markets and raw material producing areas to the maximum extent. Britain is the
most typical colonial country in the world.

Since
the end of the 15th century, Britain has gone to the sea for exploration. In
the second half of the 16th century, Britain began to open up new routes. In
the first half of the 17th century, British overseas expansion gradually
developed into organized overseas settlement and colonization activities. In
the 18th century, after a series of colonial wars, Britain established a large
colonial empire system.

As
the British had a strong egoism for the colonial rule, its rule was bound to be
opposed by the colonial people. Therefore, after World War II, the British
colonies all over the world were liberated and became independent countries.
The British colonial system collapsed. But the time of independence was not
uniform. The development of a country is naturally determined by many factors,
and to a large extent by internal factors, but the centuries of British rule
could not but have a significant impact on the colonies. Therefore, Britain's
different ruling policies in various colonies were an important reason for the
earlier or later independence of the colonies. This article will take the
United States and India as examples to illustrate this point.

India
is an ancient feudal country in South Asia. Since 1526, under the feudal rule
of the mughal dynasty, India has been conquered by foreign forces for many
times. Its culture is extremely inclusive. In 1600, the east India company
began to operate in India and gained a monopoly on Indian Ocean trade. Since
then, the east India company has gained the establishment of a military, war,
peace, territory and other privileges. The company's conquest of India began
with the capture of Bengal in 1757 and ended with the annexation of punjab in
1849. In 1858, the queen of England formally took over India. In this way,
India, with a population of 100 million people, was completely colonized by
Britain. The Indian people went through a hard struggle, and it was not until
1947 that India became the self-governing territory of Britain under the
mountbatten scheme that it officially achieved independence.

However,
the north American colonies were different from the Indian colonies, which were
gradually built by the British through the conquest of feudal countries, and the
north American colonies were gradually developed by the British in the desolate
American continent. North America was established in 1607 first colony, into
the north American colonies development period, here have set up 13 colony,
colony in the very great degree to transplant the original political and
economic system, by 1763, the north American colonies and home country
relations soured, colonies through the war of independence achieved full
independence in 1789, today, the United States after two hundred years of
development, has become the most powerful country in the world.

Through
the study of North America and India, it is not difficult to find that Britain,
as the mother country or the suzerain country, adopted different colonial
policies to the two colonies. There are several different types of colonies in
history. The first is an overseas colony formed entirely by the out-migration
of the mother country's population, which is not only derived from the same
source of residents and the mother country's population, but also in terms of
political management is in line with the mother country, which is an extension
of the territory and sovereignty of the mother country. The second kind is a
colony established by a state to subjugate other sovereign entities, where the
uplifters rule directly or use the upper echelons of the conquered to achieve
suzerain interests. This approach is often backed by force. The third kind is
the colony between the two, which has the mechanism of dominating the conquered,
and the colonization of the population from the home country. America belongs
to the first type of colony, which is an immigrant colony, while India belongs
to the second type of non-immigrant colony. Generally speaking, British
colonial policies towards India and the United States are not unchanging, but
changing with different historical development stages. The difference, however,
is that policy towards India is first lenient and policy towards America is
first lenient and then strict.

The
British ruling policy on India is as follows:

In
the first place, India was conquered by the corporation, and under the
prerogative of the king and parliament of England, the colony of the
corporation, ruled by the corporation. So after the conquest of Bangladesh, it
was up to the company to establish power. The board of directors in London
became the highest authority in India, exercising its powers from the
formulation of policy to the appointment of civil and military officials, and
the government of India was its executive body. Thus, in politics, the most
prominent feature of the British colonial policy was the establishment of the
principle that the British monopolized all office. This principle was confirmed
in the company charter act passed by parliament in 1793. The bill stipulates
that in India all civil service positions below the rank of counsellor must be
held by corporate contractual civil servants. The indentured civil servants
were the children of the aristocracy sent from England by sensible men, who had
come to make their fortunes in order to get a promotion, with great ambitions,
little knowledge, and no knowledge of India. So imagine the extreme tyranny of
the company's early regime. It was not until 1806 that the board of directors,
under pressure from public opinion, established haley's college in England as a
training base for Indian civil servants, whose quality had changed somewhat.

In
the judicial system, racial discrimination has to start from the beginning.
Cases involving Englishmen can only be heard in the high court, and wherever
there is a case against a Briton, it goes to the regional capital. This would
be costly and unaffordable for the average person, providing an umbrella for
some colonialists to run amok. Corruption is so prevalent in litigation that a
case usually takes years to resolve.

In
economy, naked plunder is its main feature. Once in power, the east India
company was eager to exploit it. In this respect his greed and brutality
dwarfed the Portuguese who ran amok on the coast of malaba. The British east
India company's early plunder in India is most typical of the primitive
accumulation of commercial capital in the colonial brutal plunder. The whole of
India has been battered to varying degrees. It has brought great disaster to India.

These
are the early policies of the British east India company in India, reflecting
the naked plunder of the primitive accumulation of capital. In the future,
Britain made a series of adjustments to adapt to the development of new forms.
Two of the more typical adjustments were made in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries, when British capitalism developed from the primary stage to the
stage of liberal capitalism, in order to make the Indian colonies more adapted
to the needs of British industrial development. In this adjustment, the
exclusion of Indians was relatively relaxed, a byproduct of free competition.
The second time was in 1858, after the British crown took over. The aim was to
consolidate political rule over India, focusing on the further centralization
and strengthening of the colonial state machine and, through various means,
beginning to co-opt the upper echelons of Indian society to serve it. In this
way, the colonists quickly allied with the feudal forces and the bourgeois
intelligentsia, which separated the upper and lower classes from the upper and
lower classes in Indian society, reduced the possibility of the outbreak of
various classes' joint uprising in India, and consolidated their own rule.

In
conclusion, the outside can be seen that the UK is a high pressure in colonial
India's overall policy, closed, limited, the policy make Britain firmly grasp
the control of the colonial India strictly before they are wide way satisfy the
Indians in the stage of "victory", which to a large extent delayed
their uprising and independent of time, until after the second world war, all
the colonies were independent, national liberation is the trend of The Times,
India gained independence finally.

The
United States did not, and it was British coercion that eventually led to the
American revolution.

In
the process of the establishment of the north American colonies, the British
government, though seldom directly contributed money or efforts, held the power
over the colonies in its own hands through charters. According to charters and
other documents, the British colonies were "legal and political
entities" or "permanent political entities and corporate bodies"
created by the king of England. That is to say, the colonies were on the one
hand an economic organization serving the economic purposes of private or
corporate individuals; On the other hand, it is also a political society, which
has the legal power to exercise political rule, which comes from the grant of
the king of England. A colony is not a possession of all the English people,
but a possession of the king as much as the British mainland. Subject to the
rule of the king, both politically and legally. From this definition, the
colonies established, in accordance with the British system of government and
customs, a government consisting of a governor, a council, and a court of
elected parliament. The governor-general represents the king, the councillor
represents the wealthy elite, and the house of Commons represents the people.
It can be seen that each colonial government is formally corresponding to the
British government, and its autonomy and integrity are higher than the British
local political units. In the way of managing overseas territories, Britain
established a system of control over the colonies, which required that the laws
made by the colonies should conform to the laws and customs of the country of
origin.

The
above nature of the colony gave the colonists political and legal status: they
were British subjects like the natives, enjoying all the privileges and
immunities of British nationals, and were free to return to their homeland. And
not only do British immigrants and their descendants enjoy the rights and equal
protection of British subjects, but so do non-British immigrants and their
descendants.

It
can be seen that the colonies of British North America and European countries
in Asia and Africa are fundamentally different. They are overseas colonies
established by the British, settled by the British and ruled by the British. In
theory, the word "colony" means attachment, which cannot legally and
politically enjoy the same status as the home country. In fact, the north
American colonies were fully developed under the protection of their home
country, and the natives Shared a large portion of their dominion. Britain did
not have a strong standing army in North America in peacetime. The recognition
and obedience of the colonists to the sovereignty of the king was not the
result of coercion or deterrence, but the result of voluntary and voluntary
choice.

That
is to say, Britain's colonial policy was generally negative. Its purpose was to
prevent the colonies from losing their loyalty and attachment to their mother
country, and to protect the colonies from being attacked by other colonial countries
and Indians in Europe, rather than to regulate their social development path.
As a result, the British had little intervention in the internal affairs of
North America, which gave the colonists a lot of room for independent
development. This led to the strengthening of the colonial capacity for
self-government.

Since
the mid-17th century, the British government has been seeking to effectively
manage and control the north American colonies, but failed to find a proper
way. Its management system and process are full of loopholes and disadvantages.
During the seven years' war, the system's flaws became more apparent, prompting
Britain to commit itself to reform. Ironically, this policy adjustment for the
purpose of strengthening colonial rule opened the prelude of the colonial
independence movement. After seven years of war, the British rulers enacted
policies that prohibited colonists from moving west to the Appalachian
mountains, stationing troops, and levying taxes. The colony revolted.

In
a word, different British policies in the colonies resulted in different
periods of rule in the colonies. Strict policies imprisoned the development of
the country, while tolerant policies encouraged the development of the
colonies. From this, we can see that the policy tolerance of the rulers,
whether in politics, economy or culture, will generally promote the development
of the society, otherwise, it will inhibit the progress of the society. This is
still enlightening to all countries in the world today.